Current Sagarin Pure Points Team Rankings (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

The Pure Points rankings are supposed to be the most accurate predictor of future games with home field advantage worth 2.24 points.

Not counting MNF . . .

1 New England Patriots 30.20

2 New Orleans Saints 29.09

3 Baltimore Ravens 27.87

4 Indianapolis Colts 27.46

5 San Diego Chargers 26.94

6 Philadelphia Eagles 26.53

7 New York Jets 26.46

8 Green Bay Packers 26.25

9 Dallas Cowboys 25.79

10 Minnesota Vikings 24.85

11 Atlanta Falcons 24.31

12 Denver Broncos 22.73

13 Cincinnati Bengals 22.41

14 New York Giants 22.08

15 San Francisco 49ers 21.75

16 Houston Texans 21.50

17 Carolina Panthers 21.48

18 Arizona Cardinals 21.47

19 Miami Dolphins 21.10

20 Pittsburgh Steelers 20.99

21 Tennessee Titans 17.77

22 Chicago Bears 16.14

23 Buffalo Bills 15.34

24 Washington Redskins 14.62

25 Jacksonville Jaguars 13.77

26 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 13.61

27 Seattle Seahawks 12.11

28 Kansas City Chiefs 11.25

29 Cleveland Browns 11.08

30 Oakland Raiders 9.89

31 Detroit Lions 7.79

32 St. Louis Rams 5.40

DIscuss . . .

 

[Avery]

DIscuss . . .

Could you explain the basis for the rankings?

 

[David Yudkin]

DIscuss . . .

Could you explain the basis for the rankings?

Here is the preamble to the rankings (which are found HERE).

To make predictions for upcoming games, simply compare the RATINGS of

the teams in question and allow an ADDITIONAL 3 points for the home

team. Thus, for example, a HOME team with a rating of 27 would be

favored by 5 points over a VISITING team having a rating of 25.

Or a VISITING team with a rating of 24 would be favored by 7 points

over a HOME team having a rating of 14.

NOTE: Use whatever home advantage is listed in the output below.

In the example just above, a home edge of 3 was shown for

illustrative purposes. The home edge will vary during the season.

The numbers to the right of a team's schedule strength are its rank of

schedule - (in parentheses) - and its record versus teams in these

rating's CURRENT top 10 and CURRENT top 16 respectively.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In ELO CHESS, only winning and losing matters; the score margin is of no consequence,

which makes it very "politically correct". However it is less accurate in its predictions for

upcoming games than is the PURE POINTS, in which the score margin is the only thing that matters.

PURE POINTS is also known as PREDICTOR, BALLANTINE, RHEINGOLD, WHITE OWL and is the best single PREDICTOR

of future games.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The overall RATING is a synthesis of the two diametrical opposites, ELO CHESS and PURE POINTS (PREDICTOR).

NFL ratings will be updated after games of Sunday and again after the Monday night game.

 

[Avery]

Interesting.

I'd like to see the rankings based on say the last 5 games or so considering some teams that started off well (the Giants for example ) are nowhere near the team they once were. To put it another way, perhaps taking the entire season's performance is not necessarily a good indicator of immediate future success.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Whatever it is, it's pretty accurate because it has St. Louis and Detroit at the bottom.

 

[BassNBrew]

14 New York Giants 22.08

17 Carolina Panthers 21.48

So what happened this weekend???

 

[Avery]

14 New York Giants 22.0817 Carolina Panthers 21.48So what happened this weekend???

I was noticing that.As I alluded to above, I believe it's based on New York's hot start when they were putting up some big points.

 

[RebelINS]

14 New York Giants 22.0817 Carolina Panthers 21.48So what happened this weekend???

Maybe they should split it up into DD(During Delhomme) and AD(After Delhomme).

 

[BassNBrew]

Pats seem to be overrated based upon their head to head v. NO/Indy/Denver/etc.

 

[FF Newbie]

The Jets score must be greatly inflated by their "15 point win against the Colts" yesterday. The computers don't know the Colts forfeited the game.

 

[David Yudkin]

Updated to reflect MNF results . . .

 

[Evilgrin 72]

The Pure Points rankings are supposed to be the most accurate predictor of future games with home field advantage worth 2.24 points.Not counting MNF . . .1 New England Patriots 30.202 New Orleans Saints 29.093 Baltimore Ravens 27.874 Indianapolis Colts 27.465 San Diego Chargers 26.946 Philadelphia Eagles 26.537 New York Jets 26.468 Green Bay Packers 26.259 Dallas Cowboys 25.7910 Minnesota Vikings 24.8511 Atlanta Falcons 24.3112 Denver Broncos 22.7313 Cincinnati Bengals 22.4114 New York Giants 22.0815 San Francisco 49ers 21.7516 Houston Texans 21.5017 Carolina Panthers 21.4818 Arizona Cardinals 21.4719 Miami Dolphins 21.1020 Pittsburgh Steelers 20.9921 Tennessee Titans 17.7722 Chicago Bears 16.1423 Buffalo Bills 15.3424 Washington Redskins 14.6225 Jacksonville Jaguars 13.7726 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 13.6127 Seattle Seahawks 12.1128 Kansas City Chiefs 11.2529 Cleveland Browns 11.0830 Oakland Raiders 9.8931 Detroit Lions 7.79 32 St. Louis Rams 5.40DIscuss . . .

Anyone with two eyes can see that Baltimore is not 7 points better than Pittsburgh on a neutral field. They split this year and Baltimore's win was in Baltimore with no Roethlisberger by 3 in overtime.

 

[thelimey]

The Jets score must be greatly inflated by their "15 point win against the Colts" yesterday. The computers don't know the Colts forfeited the game.

I've had an eye on these rankings for a couple of months, they've had the Jets quite strong for some time but that will definately boost their ranking, Miami were also hovering near the top 10 not long ago. I'm not sure if it's a chicken/egg type situation with the AFC east.The Arizona ranking looks funny as well, behind the 49ers which would maybe suggest that the divisional record / hth would mean something.... yet the Bengals are way behind the Ravens so then it doesn't?Got this from wikipedia which might explain some of it:

Sagarin, like the developers of other sports rating systems, does not divulge the exact methodology behind his numbers. He offers two rating systems, each of which gives each team a certain number of points. One system, "Elo chess," is presumably based on the Elo rating system used internationally to rank chess players. This system uses only wins and losses, with no reference to the victory margin. The other system, "Predictor," takes victory margin into account. For that system, the difference in two teams' rating scores is meant to predict the margin of victory for the stronger team at a neutral venue. For both systems, teams gain higher ratings within the Sagarin system by winning games against stronger opponents, factoring in such things as home-venue advantage. For the Predictor system, margin of victory (or defeat) factors in also, but a law of diminishing returns is applied. Therefore, a football team that wins a game by a margin of 7-6 is rewarded less than a team that defeats the same opponent under the same circumstances 21-7, but a team that wins a game by a margin of 35-0 receives similar ratings to a team that defeats the same opponent 70-0. This characteristic is highly regarded by many[who?] as it recognizes "comfortable" victories, while limiting the reward for running up the score.At the beginning of a season, when only a few games have been played, a Bayesian network weighted by starting rankings is used as long as there are whole groups of teams that have not played one another, but once the graph is well-connected, the weights are no longer needed. Sagarin claims that from that point, the rankings are unbiased. [1]

 

[Chase Stuart]

The Pure Points rankings are supposed to be the most accurate predictor of future games with home field advantage worth 2.24 points.

They're the most accurate among Sagarin's rankings. And I'm sure they're more accurate than win-loss record.With a wide variance, 15 games, and 32 teams, there are bound to be odd results (like Car beating the Giants). That's just like in any power ranking system. You can't ever satisfy the principle of Team A must be ahead of Team B and Team B must be ahead of Team C, because the transitive property doesn't work in sports. So it's not a knock on Sagarin's system that some teams that are high lost to teams that are low any more so than if Joe Bar Drunk says the Bengals are better than the Raiders or that the Saints are better than the Bucs.Sagarin's ratings are pretty basic, though. It's important to remember what predictive ratings try to do; they predict the future, they don't explain the past. A team that's 0-3 could, in theory, be the team in the league if they've been unlucky. Predictive ratings are designed to take the luck element out of the equation. One way to do that is to get as granular as possible. Using wins and losses isn't a very good way to predict things, because you get just a 1 or a 0 for every game. A 44 point win over the best team in the league is the same as a 1 point win over the worst team in the league.Using points scored and points allowed is a lot more granular than just wins and losses. But fluky things obviously happen there, too. While a large enough sample size could eliminate that, 15 games is not a large enough sample size.I like to use per play data; rushing efficiencies, passing efficiencies, rush defense efficiencies and pass defense efficiencies. We could debate how to determine those numbers, but the more granular you get, the easier it is to predict the future.

 

[Moe Green]

Based on those rankings, Baltimore seems to be curiously too high and San Diego curiously a bit too low.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Here are some simple rating system scores. It's pretty similar to what Sagarin does. Here, I give 3 points to the home team and I've capped all wins of greater than 24 points as equal to the average of 24 points and the actual number; same goes for losses. The SRS is a perfectly neutral system; the league average team gets a rating of 0.0, and all ratings (MOV, SOS and SRS) have to add up to zero. So this says the Saints are 11.1 points better than an average team, but the Rams and Lions are even more bad than the Saints are good.

tm					  mov	sos	  srsNew Orleans Saints	 11.4	-0.4	 11.1New England Patriots	8.4	 1.9	 10.3Indianapolis Colts	  8.1	-0.4	  7.7Baltimore Ravens		7.2	 0.0	  7.2Philadelphia Eagles	 7.3	-0.1	  7.2San Diego Chargers	  8.2	-1.1	  7.0Dallas Cowboys		  6.0	 0.0	  6.0New York Jets		   4.6	 1.3	  5.9Green Bay Packers	   8.4	-3.1	  5.2Minnesota Vikings	   8.0	-2.9	  5.1Atlanta Falcons		 1.4	 2.7	  4.1Denver Broncos		  1.6	 1.0	  2.6Carolina Panthers	  -0.3	 2.6	  2.3Cincinnati Bengals	  2.9	-1.1	  1.9Houston Texans		  3.4	-1.8	  1.6Miami Dolphins		 -1.4	 3.0	  1.6New York Giants		 0.1	 1.4	  1.5Arizona Cardinals	   5.2	-3.6	  1.5Pittsburgh Steelers	 2.3	-1.2	  1.1San Francisco 49ers	 1.8	-1.6	  0.2Tennessee Titans	   -2.9	 1.1	- 1.8Chicago Bears		  -4.1	-0.1	- 4.2Buffalo Bills		  -5.8	 1.6	- 4.2Washington Redskins	-4.3	-0.3	- 4.5Tampa Bay Buccaneers   -8.8	 3.4	- 5.4Jacksonville Jaguars   -5.3	-0.2	- 5.5Cleveland Browns	   -8.5	-0.1	- 8.6Seattle Seahawks	   -6.9	-2.0	- 8.9Kansas City Chiefs	 -9.5	 0.0	- 9.5Oakland Raiders	   -10.5	 0.8	- 9.7Detroit Lions		 -13.7	 0.2	-13.5St. Louis Rams		-14.3	-0.9	-15.2

Removing the Jets-Colts game makes the scores 3.7, 0.7 and 4.4 for the Jets and 9.9, -0.7 and 9.1 for the Colts. I'll use the ratings that exclude that game to show the Pats and Saints season splits:

Team 1				  hr   Team 2				  PF	PA	mov	sos	srsNew England Patriots		 Tennessee Titans		59	 0	40	-1.7	38.3New England Patriots	@	Tampa Bay Buccaneers	35	 7	27.5  -5.6	21.9New England Patriots		 Jacksonville Jaguars	35	 7	24.5  -5.4	19.1New England Patriots		 New York Jets		   31	14	14	 4.4	18.4New England Patriots		 Atlanta Falcons		 26	10	13	 3.9	16.9New England Patriots	@	Indianapolis Colts	  34	35	 2	 9.1	11.1New England Patriots		 Baltimore Ravens		27	21	 3	 7.3	10.3New England Patriots		 Carolina Panthers	   20	10	 7	 2.1	 9.1New England Patriots		 Miami Dolphins		  27	17	 7	 1.4	 8.4New England Patriots	@	Buffalo Bills		   17	10	10	-4.5	 5.5New England Patriots	@	Miami Dolphins		  21	22	 2	 1.4	 3.4New England Patriots	@	Denver Broncos		  17	20	 0	 2.7	 2.7New England Patriots	@	New York Jets			9	16	-4	 4.4	 0.4New England Patriots		 Buffalo Bills		   25	24	-2	-4.5	-6.5New England Patriots	@	New Orleans Saints	  17	38   -18	10.9	-7.1

Team 1				hr   Team 2				  PF	PA	mov	sos	srsNew Orleans Saints	@	Philadelphia Eagles	 48	22	26.5   7.1	33.6New Orleans Saints		 New England Patriots	38	17	18	10.1	28.1New Orleans Saints	@	Tampa Bay Buccaneers	38	 7	29	-5.6	23.4New Orleans Saints		 New York Giants		 48	27	18	 1.5	19.5New Orleans Saints	@	Buffalo Bills		   27	 7	23	-4.5	18.5New Orleans Saints	@	Miami Dolphins		  46	34	15	 1.4	16.4New Orleans Saints		 New York Jets		   24	10	11	 4.4	15.4New Orleans Saints	@	Atlanta Falcons		 26	23	 6	 3.9	 9.9New Orleans Saints		 Carolina Panthers	   30	20	 7	 2.1	 9.1New Orleans Saints		 Atlanta Falcons		 35	27	 5	 3.9	 8.9New Orleans Saints		 Detroit Lions		   45	27	15   -13.4	 1.6New Orleans Saints	@	Washington Redskins	 33	30	 6	-4.6	 1.4New Orleans Saints		 Dallas Cowboys		  17	24   -10	 6.0	-4.0New Orleans Saints	@	St. Louis Rams		  28	23	 8   -14.9	-6.9New Orleans Saints		 Tampa Bay Buccaneers	17	20	-6	-5.6   -11.6

The Pats get a huge amount of points (in fact, the most points any team got for any one game this year) because of their win over Tennessee. Reasonable people could disagree about how much credit they deserve for that game. The Pats had their worst game of the season come against the Saints, although their opener is right up there. The Saints worst game comes in as worse than the Pats worst game. Winning in St. Louis by only 5 comes out as less impressive than losing at home to the Cowboys by 7, because of how terrible the Rams are.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

when I saw who posted this thread some how I knew that NEPats were #1.

 

[phthalatemagic]

when I saw who posted this thread some how I knew that NEPats were #1.

 

[KCC]

Pats seem to be overrated based upon their head to head v. NO/Indy/Denver/etc.

They are 3-3 against the Top 10 and 4-5 against the Top 16 according to Sagarin.

 

[kaa]

I've never been a believer in strength of schedule. Let's take for example the 1989 49ers. I believe they would have won the super bowl if they had the hardest schedule in the NFL that year. I believe they would have won the super bowl if they had the softest schedule in the NFL that year. If you disagree with that, I'd like to hear why, because in my view, a team is what it is, and a schedule doesn't change that.

The way I see it, at the conclusion of the 1989 regular season, proponents of strength of schedule would be forced to call the 49ers overrated if they just happened to play the softest schedule in the NFL that year. They would have had to call them an incredibly dominant team if they played the hardest schedule in the NFL that year. But that change doesn't make any sense. Does playing the softest schedule in the NFL suddenly make Joe Montana not as good of a quarterback? I say it doesn't. The schedule isn't the team.

 

[kaa]

Pats seem to be overrated based upon their head to head v. NO/Indy/Denver/etc.

They are 3-3 against the Top 10 and 4-5 against the Top 16 according to Sagarin.

Should we weed out contenders if they lost to winning clubs? It may seem natural to say yes, but before we do, let's perform at least a recent history to see how past super bowl champs fared against winning clubs. The last 13 super bowl champs:2008 Steelers: 4-42007 Giants: 1-52006 Colts: 4-12005 Steelers: 4-42004 Patriots: 7-12003 Patriots: 7-02002 Buccaneers: 4-32001 Patriots: 2-32000 Ravens: 3-31999 Rams: 0-11998 Broncos: 3-11997 Broncos: 1-41996 Packers: 4-36 had a winning record against teams with winning records in the regular season.4 had a losing record3 broke evenOnly one champion in the last 4 years had a winning record against winning clubs. Amazingly, a majority of super bowl champs did NOT post a winning record against winning clubs over the past 13 seasons. History tells us that even though the Patriots lost to the Saints, Colts, Broncos, etc. during the regular season, it shouldn't disqualify them from being crowned.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I've never been a believer in strength of schedule. Let's take for example the 1989 49ers. I believe they would have won the super bowl if they had the hardest schedule in the NFL that year. I believe they would have won the super bowl if they had the softest schedule in the NFL that year. If you disagree with that, I'd like to hear why, because in my view, a team is what it is, and a schedule doesn't change that.The way I see it, at the conclusion of the 1989 regular season, proponents of strength of schedule would be forced to call the 49ers overrated if they just happened to play the softest schedule in the NFL that year. They would have had to call them an incredibly dominant team if they played the hardest schedule in the NFL that year. But that change doesn't make any sense. Does playing the softest schedule in the NFL suddenly make Joe Montana not as good of a quarterback? I say it doesn't. The schedule isn't the team.

I suspect I'm going to regret this, but:Being a believer in strength of schedule and ranking teams by strength of schedule aren't even correlated with each other, much less forced to go hand in hand. If, at the conclusion of the 1989 regular season, the 49ers were the best team in football, they'd be the best team in football regardless of their SOS. But their stats might change. For example, they might have been 15 PPG better than average but played a SOS that was 4 PPG worse than average. So the 49ers were only 11 PPG better than average, after adjusting for SOS (I'm making up these numbers). But 11 PPG better than league average was tops in the league in 1989, after ajdusting for SOS. If the 49ers had played the toughest schedule in the league, one that was 4 PPG tougher than average, SF might have been only 7 PPG better than average. That might have ranked them 4th or 5th in margin of victory in 1989, but after you adjust for strength of schedule, the 49ers shoot up to #1 in the league becuase they were 11 PPG better than average.Regardless of what their SOS was, the 49ers were 11 PPG better than average AFTER adjusting for SOS. That's the whole point of adjusting for strength of schedule, because after the adjustment, you have a grade that tells you how good that are regardless of strength of schedule. So yes, whether the 49ers had the toughest SOS in the league (and were only a raw 7 PPG better than average) or the easiest SOS in the league (and were a crazy 15 PPG better than average), the 49ers were the best team in the NFL in 1989 after adjusting for SOS. Giving them the easiest SOS in the league doesn't make them any worse.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I've never been a believer in strength of schedule. Let's take for example the 1989 49ers. I believe they would have won the super bowl if they had the hardest schedule in the NFL that year. I believe they would have won the super bowl if they had the softest schedule in the NFL that year. If you disagree with that, I'd like to hear why, because in my view, a team is what it is, and a schedule doesn't change that.The way I see it, at the conclusion of the 1989 regular season, proponents of strength of schedule would be forced to call the 49ers overrated if they just happened to play the softest schedule in the NFL that year. They would have had to call them an incredibly dominant team if they played the hardest schedule in the NFL that year. But that change doesn't make any sense. Does playing the softest schedule in the NFL suddenly make Joe Montana not as good of a quarterback? I say it doesn't. The schedule isn't the team.

You never know. The Eagles this weekend have the opportunity for a 1st round bye, a home game in the divisional playoffs and only needing two wins to get to the Superbowl. With a loss, they are looking at no bye, and 3 road games to get to the Superbowl. Totally different road. If the 89 Niners had to play a harder schedule, they might have had to play wildcard weekend on the road, the divisional round on the road and the NFCCG on the road instead of two home games. And then that doesn't take into account the physical and mental toll that would come with having to fight each week to make the playoffs instead of having a spot locked up with 3 or 4 weeks to go.

 

[5Rings]

The Jets score must be greatly inflated by their "15 point win against the Colts" yesterday. The computers don't know the Colts forfeited the game.

Jets are about 10 spots too high. Surprising how low Jax is.

 

[footballguy#1]

Pats seem to be overrated based upon their head to head v. NO/Indy/Denver/etc.

They are 3-3 against the Top 10 and 4-5 against the Top 16 according to Sagarin.

How bout the Steelers. 4-1 against the top 10 and 1-3 against the bottom 5. Jeckyll and Hyde much?

 

[kaa]

I've never been a believer in strength of schedule. Let's take for example the 1989 49ers. I believe they would have won the super bowl if they had the hardest schedule in the NFL that year. I believe they would have won the super bowl if they had the softest schedule in the NFL that year. If you disagree with that, I'd like to hear why, because in my view, a team is what it is, and a schedule doesn't change that.

The way I see it, at the conclusion of the 1989 regular season, proponents of strength of schedule would be forced to call the 49ers overrated if they just happened to play the softest schedule in the NFL that year. They would have had to call them an incredibly dominant team if they played the hardest schedule in the NFL that year. But that change doesn't make any sense. Does playing the softest schedule in the NFL suddenly make Joe Montana not as good of a quarterback? I say it doesn't. The schedule isn't the team.

I suspect I'm going to regret this, but:Being a believer in strength of schedule and ranking teams by strength of schedule aren't even correlated with each other, much less forced to go hand in hand. If, at the conclusion of the 1989 regular season, the 49ers were the best team in football, they'd be the best team in football regardless of their SOS. But their stats might change. For example, they might have been 15 PPG better than average but played a SOS that was 4 PPG worse than average. So the 49ers were only 11 PPG better than average, after adjusting for SOS (I'm making up these numbers). But 11 PPG better than league average was tops in the league in 1989, after ajdusting for SOS. If the 49ers had played the toughest schedule in the league, one that was 4 PPG tougher than average, SF might have been only 7 PPG better than average. That might have ranked them 4th or 5th in margin of victory in 1989, but after you adjust for strength of schedule, the 49ers shoot up to #1 in the league becuase they were 11 PPG better than average.

Regardless of what their SOS was, the 49ers were 11 PPG better than average AFTER adjusting for SOS. That's the whole point of adjusting for strength of schedule, because after the adjustment, you have a grade that tells you how good that are regardless of strength of schedule. So yes, whether the 49ers had the toughest SOS in the league (and were only a raw 7 PPG better than average) or the easiest SOS in the league (and were a crazy 15 PPG better than average), the 49ers were the best team in the NFL in 1989 after adjusting for SOS. Giving them the easiest SOS in the league doesn't make them any worse.

Well, I'm probably going to regret this, but:NFL teams don't build their teams to run up the score on bad clubs, they don't build their teams to have the #1 margin of victory after adjusting for SOS. They build them to win games. And that means teams bench starters when leads are sufficiently large, or they call off the dogs and start handing off the football. Not every coach is like Belichick and runs up the score 56-0 and then goes for it on 4th down. Using SOS the way you suggest essentially penalizes some teams not on the basis of their talent level but on their personal taste of what constitutes a "big enough" lead.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I've never been a believer in strength of schedule. Let's take for example the 1989 49ers. I believe they would have won the super bowl if they had the hardest schedule in the NFL that year. I believe they would have won the super bowl if they had the softest schedule in the NFL that year. If you disagree with that, I'd like to hear why, because in my view, a team is what it is, and a schedule doesn't change that.

The way I see it, at the conclusion of the 1989 regular season, proponents of strength of schedule would be forced to call the 49ers overrated if they just happened to play the softest schedule in the NFL that year. They would have had to call them an incredibly dominant team if they played the hardest schedule in the NFL that year. But that change doesn't make any sense. Does playing the softest schedule in the NFL suddenly make Joe Montana not as good of a quarterback? I say it doesn't. The schedule isn't the team.

I suspect I'm going to regret this, but:Being a believer in strength of schedule and ranking teams by strength of schedule aren't even correlated with each other, much less forced to go hand in hand. If, at the conclusion of the 1989 regular season, the 49ers were the best team in football, they'd be the best team in football regardless of their SOS. But their stats might change. For example, they might have been 15 PPG better than average but played a SOS that was 4 PPG worse than average. So the 49ers were only 11 PPG better than average, after adjusting for SOS (I'm making up these numbers). But 11 PPG better than league average was tops in the league in 1989, after ajdusting for SOS. If the 49ers had played the toughest schedule in the league, one that was 4 PPG tougher than average, SF might have been only 7 PPG better than average. That might have ranked them 4th or 5th in margin of victory in 1989, but after you adjust for strength of schedule, the 49ers shoot up to #1 in the league becuase they were 11 PPG better than average.

Regardless of what their SOS was, the 49ers were 11 PPG better than average AFTER adjusting for SOS. That's the whole point of adjusting for strength of schedule, because after the adjustment, you have a grade that tells you how good that are regardless of strength of schedule. So yes, whether the 49ers had the toughest SOS in the league (and were only a raw 7 PPG better than average) or the easiest SOS in the league (and were a crazy 15 PPG better than average), the 49ers were the best team in the NFL in 1989 after adjusting for SOS. Giving them the easiest SOS in the league doesn't make them any worse.

Well, I'm probably going to regret this, but:NFL teams don't build their teams to run up the score on bad clubs, they don't build their teams to have the #1 margin of victory after adjusting for SOS. They build them to win games. And that means teams bench starters when leads are sufficiently large, or they call off the dogs and start handing off the football. Not every coach is like Belichick and runs up the score 56-0 and then goes for it on 4th down. Using SOS the way you suggest essentially penalizes some teams not on the basis of their talent level but on their personal taste of what constitutes a "big enough" lead.

It's got nothing to do with margin of victory. Use whatever input you want, including wins, to measure team performance.Going 12-4 against a schedule that an average team would go 10-6 against may be more impressive than going 13-3 against a schedule that an average team would go 8-8 against.

Suppose the '49ers have a true team ability of 13-3. Against a craptastic schedule, they'd go 15-1. Against a super hard schedule, they'd go 11-5. Now, after adjusting for SOS, the 49ers would still be 13-3 regardless of how difficult their SOS was. That's the point of adjusting for SOS.

Just because the 49ers had the easiest schedule in the league and went 15-1 doesn't mean they're a bad team. What it means is they might be overrated if everyone thinks their true ability is 15-1. So they're "overrated"; they're really only a 13-3 team. Now a 13-3 team might be the best team in football. So it's not inconsistent at all to say a team is overrated and has an easy schedule and that they're the best team in the league. The 49ers would have won the SB whether they had the easiest SOS in the league (and therefore went 18-1) or the hardest SOS in the league (and therefore went 14-5). Either way, they'd have a true team rating of 16-3, after you adjust for SOS.

The strawman you set up is assuming that a team can't be both overrated because they faced a super easy schedule and both incredibly dominant.

 

[kaa]

Pats seem to be overrated based upon their head to head v. NO/Indy/Denver/etc.

Ironically, you may be EXACTLY wrong.

PURE POINTS, in which the score margin is the only thing that matters.

The Pure Points rankings are supposed to be the most accurate predictor of future games with home field advantage worth 2.24 points.Not counting MNF . . .1 New England Patriots 30.20

Perhaps the Patriots are #1 in the Pure Points rankings not because of how they failed against the best teams, but because they are very ruthless and run the score up whenever they can. That philosophy benefits them in a ranking system that uses score margin.

 

[switz]

The Pure Points rankings are supposed to be the most accurate predictor of future games with home field advantage worth 2.24 points.Not counting MNF . . .1 New England Patriots 30.20DIscuss . . .

The Pats haven't beaten a single good team all year. They dominate the worst teams, play close and sometimes beat average teams, and can't beat good teams, even if they take them to the wire like Indy. It will be interesting to see them in the playoffs.

 

[kaa]

I've never been a believer in strength of schedule. Let's take for example the 1989 49ers. I believe they would have won the super bowl if they had the hardest schedule in the NFL that year. I believe they would have won the super bowl if they had the softest schedule in the NFL that year. If you disagree with that, I'd like to hear why, because in my view, a team is what it is, and a schedule doesn't change that.

The way I see it, at the conclusion of the 1989 regular season, proponents of strength of schedule would be forced to call the 49ers overrated if they just happened to play the softest schedule in the NFL that year. They would have had to call them an incredibly dominant team if they played the hardest schedule in the NFL that year. But that change doesn't make any sense. Does playing the softest schedule in the NFL suddenly make Joe Montana not as good of a quarterback? I say it doesn't. The schedule isn't the team.

I suspect I'm going to regret this, but:Being a believer in strength of schedule and ranking teams by strength of schedule aren't even correlated with each other, much less forced to go hand in hand. If, at the conclusion of the 1989 regular season, the 49ers were the best team in football, they'd be the best team in football regardless of their SOS. But their stats might change. For example, they might have been 15 PPG better than average but played a SOS that was 4 PPG worse than average. So the 49ers were only 11 PPG better than average, after adjusting for SOS (I'm making up these numbers). But 11 PPG better than league average was tops in the league in 1989, after ajdusting for SOS. If the 49ers had played the toughest schedule in the league, one that was 4 PPG tougher than average, SF might have been only 7 PPG better than average. That might have ranked them 4th or 5th in margin of victory in 1989, but after you adjust for strength of schedule, the 49ers shoot up to #1 in the league becuase they were 11 PPG better than average.

Regardless of what their SOS was, the 49ers were 11 PPG better than average AFTER adjusting for SOS. That's the whole point of adjusting for strength of schedule, because after the adjustment, you have a grade that tells you how good that are regardless of strength of schedule. So yes, whether the 49ers had the toughest SOS in the league (and were only a raw 7 PPG better than average) or the easiest SOS in the league (and were a crazy 15 PPG better than average), the 49ers were the best team in the NFL in 1989 after adjusting for SOS. Giving them the easiest SOS in the league doesn't make them any worse.

Well, I'm probably going to regret this, but:NFL teams don't build their teams to run up the score on bad clubs, they don't build their teams to have the #1 margin of victory after adjusting for SOS. They build them to win games. And that means teams bench starters when leads are sufficiently large, or they call off the dogs and start handing off the football. Not every coach is like Belichick and runs up the score 56-0 and then goes for it on 4th down. Using SOS the way you suggest essentially penalizes some teams not on the basis of their talent level but on their personal taste of what constitutes a "big enough" lead.

It's got nothing to do with margin of victory. Use whatever input you want, including wins, to measure team performance.Going 12-4 against a schedule that an average team would go 10-6 against may be more impressive than going 13-3 against a schedule that an average team would go 8-8 against.

Suppose the '49ers have a true team ability of 13-3. Against a craptastic schedule, they'd go 15-1. Against a super hard schedule, they'd go 11-5. Now, after adjusting for SOS, the 49ers would still be 13-3 regardless of how difficult their SOS was. That's the point of adjusting for SOS.

Just because the 49ers had the easiest schedule in the league and went 15-1 doesn't mean they're a bad team. What it means is they might be overrated if everyone thinks their true ability is 15-1. So they're "overrated"; they're really only a 13-3 team. Now a 13-3 team might be the best team in football. So it's not inconsistent at all to say a team is overrated and has an easy schedule and that they're the best team in the league. The 49ers would have won the SB whether they had the easiest SOS in the league (and therefore went 18-1) or the hardest SOS in the league (and therefore went 14-5). Either way, they'd have a true team rating of 16-3, after you adjust for SOS.

The strawman you set up is assuming that a team can't be both overrated because they faced a super easy schedule and both incredibly dominant.

Well it sounds like we agree. 1. I express doubt in a SOS system.

2. In response, you use phrases such as "may be more impressive" and "might be overrated".

So I guess you have a healthy amount of doubt in a SOS system as well, which is really all I was getting at. Good to know you're not a zealot in regards to that measure.

 

[Chase Stuart]

So I guess you have a healthy amount of doubt in a SOS system as well, which is really all I was getting at. Good to know you're not a zealot in regards to that measure.

I have a healthy amount of doubt in every system when it comes to rating football teams. I have more doubt w/r/t systems that don't take into account SOS, though.

 

[kaa]

So I guess you have a healthy amount of doubt in a SOS system as well, which is really all I was getting at. Good to know you're not a zealot in regards to that measure.

I have a healthy amount of doubt in every system when it comes to rating football teams. I have more doubt w/r/t systems that don't take into account SOS, though.

I'd say I agree with that. I'm not a believer in SOS, I think its full of holes, but probably unwise to completely dismiss.

 

[Workhorse]

The Pure Points rankings are supposed to be the most accurate predictor of future games with home field advantage worth 2.24 points.Not counting MNF . . .1 New England Patriots 30.20DIscuss . . .

The Pats haven't beaten a single good team all year. They dominate the worst teams, play close and sometimes beat average teams, and can't beat good teams, even if they take them to the wire like Indy. It will be interesting to see them in the playoffs.

I think part of it is that some of the good teams they've played have been at their peak the week the Patriots played them.They caught the Saints and Colts while both those respective teams were cruising and undefeated, the Broncos when they were also undefeated and playing well, the Jets early in the season when their defense was murderous and Sanchez was somewhat competant and a one point loss in Miami when the Dolphins were winning 3 of their last 4 games in their best stretch of the season. Also remember that most of these systems adjust for home games: The Pats lost 3 of their road games by a total of 5 points. I'm actually pretty pessimistic about the Patriots chances in the playoffs since I'm not sold on the secondary holding up against either the Colts or Chargers in a big spot but I completely understand how Sagarin's system would rank them so highly.

 

[djcolts]

59-0 vs. the Titans has something to do with their high pure points ranking. I'm not sure how much - but probably is the biggest win in the 2009 season in terms of helping a pure points ranking.

 

[eaglesfan7]

Did this system die out?

 

[David Yudkin]

Here were the final rankings for the 2010 season . . .

1 Green Bay Packers 32.65

2 New England Patriots 32.41

3 Pittsburgh Steelers 30.26

4 Baltimore Ravens 27.78

5 New York Jets 26.95

6 Philadelphia Eagles 24.19

7 Atlanta Falcons 24.16

8 San Diego Chargers 24.11

9 Chicago Bears 23.84

10 New York Giants 23.58

11 Indianapolis Colts 22.94

12 Detroit Lions 22.39

13 New Orleans Saints 21.44

14 Tennessee Titans 20.20

15 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 19.97

16 Miami Dolphins 19.89

17 Oakland Raiders 19.42

18 Houston Texans 18.76

19 Cincinnati Bengals 18.65

20 Dallas Cowboys 18.39

21 Minnesota Vikings 18.17

22 Cleveland Browns 17.79

23 Washington Redskins 17.57

24 Kansas City Chiefs 17.00

25 Buffalo Bills 15.54

26 Jacksonville Jaguars 15.35

27 St. Louis Rams 13.96

28 San Francisco 49ers 13.83

29 Seattle Seahawks 12.77

30 Denver Broncos 11.64

31 Arizona Cardinals 7.36

32 Carolina Panthers 7.02

 

[eaglesfan7]

Here were the final rankings for the 2010 season . . .1 Green Bay Packers 32.652 New England Patriots 32.413 Pittsburgh Steelers 30.264 Baltimore Ravens 27.785 New York Jets 26.956 Philadelphia Eagles 24.197 Atlanta Falcons 24.168 San Diego Chargers 24.119 Chicago Bears 23.8410 New York Giants 23.5811 Indianapolis Colts 22.9412 Detroit Lions 22.3913 New Orleans Saints 21.4414 Tennessee Titans 20.2015 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 19.9716 Miami Dolphins 19.8917 Oakland Raiders 19.4218 Houston Texans 18.7619 Cincinnati Bengals 18.6520 Dallas Cowboys 18.3921 Minnesota Vikings 18.1722 Cleveland Browns 17.7923 Washington Redskins 17.5724 Kansas City Chiefs 17.0025 Buffalo Bills 15.5426 Jacksonville Jaguars 15.3527 St. Louis Rams 13.9628 San Francisco 49ers 13.8329 Seattle Seahawks 12.7730 Denver Broncos 11.6431 Arizona Cardinals 7.3632 Carolina Panthers 7.02

Thanks. There hasn't been a post in over a year and I was curious.

 

[azgroover]

Here were the final rankings for the 2010 season . . .1 Green Bay Packers 32.652 New England Patriots 32.413 Pittsburgh Steelers 30.264 Baltimore Ravens 27.785 New York Jets 26.956 Philadelphia Eagles 24.197 Atlanta Falcons 24.168 San Diego Chargers 24.119 Chicago Bears 23.8410 New York Giants 23.5811 Indianapolis Colts 22.9412 Detroit Lions 22.3913 New Orleans Saints 21.4414 Tennessee Titans 20.2015 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 19.9716 Miami Dolphins 19.8917 Oakland Raiders 19.4218 Houston Texans 18.7619 Cincinnati Bengals 18.6520 Dallas Cowboys 18.3921 Minnesota Vikings 18.1722 Cleveland Browns 17.7923 Washington Redskins 17.5724 Kansas City Chiefs 17.0025 Buffalo Bills 15.5426 Jacksonville Jaguars 15.3527 St. Louis Rams 13.9628 San Francisco 49ers 13.8329 Seattle Seahawks 12.7730 Denver Broncos 11.6431 Arizona Cardinals 7.3632 Carolina Panthers 7.02

How bout the Lions? I like to run the Pythagorean on pf/pa during the season, and they were better than expected along that front as well.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Kinda amazing to see the Bengals check in at #19 here. Especially after last year was #13.

-QG

 

[Orange Crush]

Kinda amazing to see the Bengals check in at #19 here. Especially after last year was #13.-QG

I think it's a testament to how much strength of schedule plays in the final NFL win/loss records. In '09, Bengals played a very easy schedule, and ended up winning their division. Last year they played a much harder schedule and ended up among the league's bottom dwellers. This, even though they weren't that far apart in quality of play from '09 to '10. At the same time, I like the fact that Sagarin combines these pure points rating with his other system based on wins and losses, because winning the game has a strong psychological affect on a team. Losing a game to a really good team by a point may tell the pure point system that you're a pretty good team, but if that's your third or fourth close loss to a good team in a row, the team is going to start thinking "we're a bunch of losers" and play that way.